Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9
. the attacks happened at a time when tensions are high between the u.s. and india's ah enemy pakistan. reza, what is the strategy of multiple bombs in multiple locations? tell us about both the motive and the likely perpetrators of these attacks. >> well, it certainly bears the hallmarks of a group like lashkar-e-taiba, of course, the group responsible for the devastating 2008 attack on mumbai. at the same time, i think investigators are saying that the relatively small scale of this attack and the fact that the bombs were rather crude. there were actually ieds, martin, incates that it could be an indigenous terror organization, an organization known as the indian mujahadin which may or may not have links to lashkar-e-taiba but that remains to be seen. no one has accepted responsibility just yet. >> you say these were small devices, but 21 people killed, and at least 113 injured is not small. secretary of state hillary clinton is scheduled to visit india next week, but the united states is currently in a very tense situation with india's rival pakistan, as you know. does the u.s. have to tr
panetta visited in afghanistan. he failed to visit pakistan. what do you think that says about the tension? >> the tension is quite high. frankly unless there is some reversal and lowering of the rhetoric, then i think it's going to spin in a very deep decline. that's not something that's in pakistan's interest on the united states. you need to keep conversations as private as possible sending very strong messages but if we continue to vent our frustrations mutual frustrations ours with the pakistanis and what they have done and fail to do theirs with us in terms of us trying to micro manage what they're doing, then your going to have a break or breach in that relationship. pakistan is a major non-nato ally. allies don't allow things to happen like the hosting of the con sealing of bin laden or the arresting of those who help take bin laden down or allegedly the targeting for assassination of a journalist who's been critical of the regime. these are not the acts of allies. we've got to get back to a level of respect and trust i think that's lacking right now. as a result the relationship i
, which is also the problem of pakistan, becomes a regional problem in which the country's in the region have a stake in solving and are not -- there's a reasonable chance that can be pulled off. >> dr. brzezinski, you mentioned pakistan. the focus of policy leaders. turning away from afghanistan, we got reports the journalist who was killed by the isi inside pakistan further out is complicating our relationship with that group. we announced going in to kill osama bin laden. how do we manage this relationship that's been difficult to manage for as far as the eye can see? >> well, first of all, we have to recognize we are dealing here with two sifrl conflicts. one in afghanistan and the one in pakistan. there's a conflict in pakistan. there isn't a foreign intervention trying to resolve it. it is a great internal conflict. what we are seeing in pakistan is a series of contradictory policies, contradictory engagements and contradictory engagements. the army wants to preserve a stable pakistan that is assured of security and sees the united states as a component of the success in that quest
of pakistan that will bring success to local areas. a country from kabul, it will never happen. we are wasting time and money. the fact we are leaving may assist in the development of stability in local areas. they will never be a centrally governed pakistan, i mean afghanistan. afghanistan is not like iraq. give me one more second and i'll tell you what i think is going to happen in iraq. we'll probably go back to having one bloodthirsty tyrant to rule the country. that's the irony of iraq. >> happy days, wes. >> afghanistan is extraordinarily tribal. it's difficult to have a conversation about afghanistan. one story i loved was one of the things we did in afghanistan when i was working with the civil affairs team, giving out flags to children and local leaders. they would look at the flag and say what is this. you would have to explain, it's your country. there's another thing, i think you brought up a good point, joe. afghanistan is not iraq. you are right. there's a crucial player, though that factors in. that's iran. iran is not only very active and involved, but in addition to that, iran
as well. pat. >> dr. brzezinski, let me talk to you about pakistan. powers flu out, richard nixon tilted, doctor brzezinski was over there looking down the pass. they were a great ally in the cold war. now it looks like we have lost pakistan. have we lost pakistan? if so, why and was it inevitable. >> i think we are losing pakistan. i don't know if we have lost it yet. if we disengage intelligently and engage in the umbrella i have been talking about, her happens we will lose it all together. i think the fault is two way. first of all, we have never been really consistently and comprehensively sensitive to the political interests in having a secure backyard in afghanistan. we just haven't. resently, we played with indi s indians. we give a super nuclear deal to the indians. we did not give it to the pakistanis. there's resentment there. pakistan is coming undone on its own. it's not all our undoing. there's a conflict between the army and society at large. divisions between the army and the military and intelligence. ethnic differences. regional differences in pakistan. plus, this overw
the east to the pakistan border. that's where i spent my time. we're starting to see a lot of the flow from fighters coming from pakistan. >> let me ask you, drawn down 33,000 troops by september of next year, good shape in kandahar and helmand province. how can you maintain momentum and win a war when you're pulling out 1/3 of the best soldiers you've got. >> a couple of things, one, we're having as we had with a bond conference in 2001. what's interesting is as we were talking about troop deployments and actual mission and strategy, we're in the process of escalating the troop numbers. now we're having the reconciliation with the taliban and networks, etc., as we're decelerating. that factors in to the larger conversation. the second thing that's important to remember about the troop assignments is how many will be combat troops or support troops. what are the areas you're going to pen trade in to and hold on to the areas as well. >> "the new york times" reporting this morning that the obama administration officials believe that pakistan's spy agency ordered the killing of a pakistani jou
that occurred originally back in the '40s between india and pakistan, a couple hundred muslims live inside -- >> millions. that's okay. >> live inside india and there are extremist groups with india as opposed to pakistani base that go over to india responsible for similar small-scale attacks. so nobody is clear yet who it is, but i think you're right. the fact that indian officials didn't immediately blame or cast doubt that it was pakistan suggests that they don't think it is. >> and also you just made a point we were talking ak. 200 million muslims in country of india makes india one of the largest -- the largest muslim country in the world? >> exactly. indonesia and india, countries with the largest number of muslims in the world. indians often present that evidence to westerners. >> sure. >> saying we know how to work closely with our multiple populations. we're a large democracy and see how things go so well. it doesn't always go so well in that country. >> move to syria. both in new york and washington we're obsess with the debt talks and defaulting and obviously for important reaso
for afghanistan and pakistan told us this is a very fragile, difficult time. we know that for afghanistan. as we begin to draw down, what thauz that mean for their path to peace and stability and progress? american businesses will tell you if we want them to invest there, they won't do it without the presence of american security, that's very important for our government to know. >> are american businesses really willing to invest in afghanistan? >> they are. one of the most recent projects is with kate spade. kate spade has gone into afghanistan in the last year. they surveyed what tn opportunities are there for marketable products and going te marketableable products, and afghanistan has the third largest producer of cashmere, and they want a product made by afghan women and sold in kate spade stores here and online and they are willing to invest a lot of money i might add, but they have the support of the u.s. government and the u.s. military to give them access. >> anita mcbride, what a pleasure to see you again. >> thank you so much. >>> what political stories will be making headlines in th
lethal and could become explosive. >> pakistan. >> it is. harold ford, make no mistake of it. i saw this as a small government conservative. i say this as a free market capitalist. i will tell you a lot of people who voted for pat buchan nab two times for president would agree with me here that if you have hedge fund managers pays significantly less in taxes, our secretaries, our schoolteachers, if you have the largest corporations on the planet paying 0% in u.s. taxes, that is going to cause eventually social unrest. that's not a democratic issue or a republican issue. >> that's a problem. >> global financial institutions including imf made clear -- this challenge, unemployment and the growing disparity are the greatest threats. the question i have for dr. brzenszki, this morning, what advice would you have to achieve the most articulate and succinct frame -- i heard your frame of it, why we find ousts in this mess, the kind of shared sacrifi sacrifice. a week away from it. how do you do it, doctor. >> i think the majority in this country which involves moderate and responsible rep
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9